Association with Focus and Linear Order in German
Florian Jaeger, Michael Wagner∗
June 17, 2003
Abstract - Whereas languages with relatively fixed constituent order, such as English, mark
association with focus primarily by means of accent placement, scrambling languages, such as
German, obey linear order constraints for association with focus. We discuss how constituent
order and intonation interact to license certain scopes for the semantic focus of focus sensitive
operators. We also investigate some differences in the patterns of association with focus for
three focus-sensitive operators in German, nur ’only’, auch ’also/too’, and immer ’always’.
Keywords - association with focus, focus sensitive operators, German, linear order
constraint
1
Introduction
Languages differ in which formal properties they use to mark focus, i.e. the element(s)
in a sentence that are in the semantic focus of a focus-sensitive operator. English has
a relatively fixed word order and no focus-marking morphology. The effect of intonation
(i.e. certain accent placements and sometimes phrasing) on possible focus interpretations
has been discussed thoroughly. The interpretation of the examples in (1) differs according
to their different accent placements. Throughout the paper we use underlining to mark
association with focus. The focus-sensitive operator in italics associates with the semantic
elements described by the underlined words.
(1)
a. Peter only gave Máry F a book.
b. Peter only gave Mary a bóokF .
By association with focus 1 we mean that e.g. in (1) the underlined constituent refers to
the entity that is in the scope of the focus-sensitive operator ’only’. The resulting meanings
of (1a) and (1b) are given in (2a) and (2b):
(2)
a. The only person Peter gave a book to was Mary (and nobody else).
The order of authors is purely due to alphanumeric conventions. We thank our informants who suffered
through M.W. refined questioning strategies during seemingly harmless dinner parties =) or were bothered
by mass emails by F. J.: Judith Tonhauser, Eva Waschlevkovski, Rolf Jaeger, Christian Scholz, Andreas
Kühn, Carina Schuler, Martin Schwarz, Stefi Winkler, Katrin Kühn, ...
1
In the remainder of the paper we will also say that something is in focus or part of the focus if it is in
the semantic scope of the focus-sensitive operator.
∗
1
b. The only thing Peter gave to Mary was a book (and nothing else).
While in German, too, intonation plays a crucial role in determining which item is
in focus, association with focus is further constrained by constituent order. Consider the
German sentences in (3) which - in terms of word order - correlate closely with the English
examples in (1).2
(3)
a. Peter gab nur Mária F ein Buch.
b. *Peter gab nur Maria ein BúchF .
Peter gave only Maria a book
‘Peter only gave Maria a book.’
Unlike English ’only’, which can associate with any of the syntactic arguments of the
verb if it has syntactic scope over the argument and the argument receives the right accent,
German nur seems to be more limited in this respect. Although the order between the
operator (here: nur) and the two arguments as well as the order among the two arguments
are exactly the same in the English (1) and the German (3), (3b) cannot mean (2b). In
this paper, we try to provide a overall picture of the linear order constraints on association
with focus in German and how it differs from English. The paper is not so much intended
to deliver a theoretical explanation of the observed facts but rather aims at a structured
overview. Out of the plethora of focus-related phenomena, we have chosen to focus on the
effects of word order and intonation on association with (semantic-)focus, as defined above.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, we give a general overview
of the linear order constraints on possible associations with focus and illustrate two descriptive generalizations, precedence and adjacency, going back to observations in Altmann
(1978, 22) and Jacobs (1983, 40ff,113). In section 2.2 we compare our observations for
German with English. Following that, we discuss some exceptions to those generalizations.
Section 3 discusses violations of adjacency and section 4 goes through two different
types of violations of precedence. These counterexamples are shown to be due to two
factors: (i) the independently motivated phenomena of scrambling and V 2 placement are
shown to be responsible for the fact that sometimes Precedence is not fullfilled (Jacobs,
1983, 55,114); (ii) focus adverbs can attach syntactically to verbal projections 3 , but cannot
attach to DPs or CPs (Jacobs, 1983, 40ff). This often makes it impossible to place a focus
adverb adjacent to DPs or CPs, even if the DP or CP is the focus. This fact, we show,
explains several violations of Adjacency.
In the light of Beaver and Clark (2003) who show that focus-sensitive operators do not
fall into one homogenous class, we contrast three different focus-sensitive adverbs of German
in section 5. We show that the three focus sensitive adverbs, nur ’only’, auch ’also/too’,
and immer ’always’ pattern differently with respect to e.g. the linear order of the adverb
and the focused element.
2
For sentences where we mark the focus, we use the * to indicate that the example is not possible with
the intended meaning.
3
Jacobs (1983, 64-72) shows that some focus adverbs also attach to DP-internally to nominal phrases
and to certain predicates, and some also to a certain class of determiners.
2
Finally, we summarize our observations and the generalizations in section 6, and discuss
possible solutions.
2
Association with Focus and Linear Order
German allows focus sensitive adverbs to appear in various positions. In embedded clauses,
for example, the focus adverb can be placed either preceding the subject, the indirect object,
the direct object, or the participle:
(4)
Ich glaube,...
‘I think...
a.
b.
c.
d.
...dass
...dass
...dass
...dass
...that
nur/auch/immer Peter Maria das Buch gegeben hat.
Peter nur/auch/immer Maria das Buch gegeben hat.
Peter Maria nur/auch/immer das Buch gegeben hat.
Peter Maria das Buch nur/auch/immer gegeben hat.
Peter Mary the book only/also/always given
has
...that Peter only/also/always gave Mary a book.’
In the following, we illustrate which constraints certain word orders impose on possible
associations of particular focus-sensitive adverbs in German. We then compare the data to
the English pattern, and show that German differs from English substantially in how word
order affects association with focus.
2.1
Linear Order Constrains Focus Options
In this section, we go through four types of focus-structures, i.e. four type of sentences
which differ in regard to which of their elements are part of the focus.
The first case to consider is when the focus comprises all of the arguments. 4 We will
refer to this type of focus as sentence-wide focus. Here, we limit ourselves primarily to
subordinate clauses to avoid further complications due to V-final to V-2 movement in the
case of main clauses. We also hold all other factors 5 figuring in scrambling as stable as
possible in order to make it easier to understand the effects of focus on scrambling.
(5)
Warum ist das Fahrrad umgedreht? Ich glaube, ...
‘Why is the bike upside-down? I think...
a. ...dass nur irgendwer irgendwem einen Streich spielen wollte F .
b. *...dass irgendwer nur irgendwem einen Streich spielen wollte F .
4
In order to restrict the domain of this paper in a reasonable way, we do not discuss association with
non-arguments. We also have focused on sentences that are relatively bare, i.e. do not contain much material
beside the phrases we are interested in.
5
German scrambling has been argued to be subject to many factors besides focus (e.g. Müller (1999)),
among which are +/-definite, +/-specific, +/- agentive, +/- topic, +/- given, etc. At some points of this
paper, we address their interaction with focus but we do not attempt a complete analysis of the interaction
of focus with all of the other factors.
3
c. *...dass irgendwer irgendwem nur einen Streich spielen wollte F .
d. *...dass irgendwer irgendwem einen Streich nur spielen wollte F .
only play wanted
...that someone somone.dat a prank
...that someone only wanted to play a prank on someone.
...ich bezweifle, dass es der Wind war.
...i doubt that it is due to the wind.’
The context requires association with the entire clause as the focus, including the subject. Here and in many of the examples to follow, we use preceding and following context
to control the association with focus (indicated by subscripting and underlining and subsripting with f). Questions in the preceding context illicit the focus, and explicit provision
of alternatives in the context afterwards further constrains the semantic type and syntactic
category of the associated material in the target sentence. 6
In the example in (5), the focus particle has to precede the subject. Placing the focus
particle after the subject excludes the subject from the association domain. This indicates
that a focus operator has to precede the constituent it associates with, including all the
subconstituents in the focus. Similar observations are made in Altmann (1978); Jacobs
(1983); Büring and Hartmann (2001).
(6)
Generalization 1: Precedence
A focus-sensitive adverb has to precede its focus.
There are, however, systematic counterexamples to this generalization that we address
in section (4).7
The next step is to consider a case where the subject is not part of the focus. We will
refer to sentences like the ones in (7) as broad-focus sentences.
(7)
Warum hat Peter eines der Fahrräder umgedreht? Ich glaube, ...
‘Why did Peter put one of the bikes upside down? I think...
a. *...dass nur Peter irgendwem einen Streich spielen wollte F .
b. ...dass Peter nur irgendwem einen Streich spielen wollte F .
c. *...dass Peter irgendwem nur einen Streich spielen wollte F .
d. *...dass Peter irgendwem einen Streich nur spielen wollte F .
...that Peter someone a prank
only play wanted
...that Peter only wanted to lay a prank on someone.
...ich bezweifle, dass er es böse meinte.
... I doubt he had any bad intentions.’
The example in (7b) illustrates that the subject can precede the focus adverb if it is not
part of its focus domain. The example in (7a) illustrates that it in fact has to precede the
focus adverb. In other words, the judgements in (7a,b) are exactly reversed from those in
6
7
We assume the atlernative semantics in Rooth (1992) where focus creates sets of alternatives.
These exceptions are the reason why we use indefinites like ‘someone’ in our examples.
4
(5a,b). It looks as if the focus adverb has to directly precede its focus, and a constituent
that is not part of the focus cannot separate the two.
(8)
Generalization 2: Adjacency
A focus-sensitive operator and its focus cannot be separated by a constituent that
is not part of the focus.
If the generalization in (6) and (8) are correct, we expect similar patterns with respect
to the placement of the indirect object. Indeed, the example in (7b) illustrates that if
the indirect object is part of the focus, it can follow the focus adverb. The example in
(7c) illustrates that in this case it may not precede the focus adverb, thus obeying both
generalizations.
What happens when the indirect object is not part of the focus? Based on (6) and (8),
we expect again a shift in judgements, this time with respect to the relative position of the
focus adverb and the indirect object. This predictions is borne out, as shown in (9c). We
will call sentences like the one in (9c) V-DO focus sentences.
(9)
Warum hat Peter Marias Fahrrad umgedreht? Ich glaube, ...
‘Why did Peter put Mary’s bike upside-down? I think...
a. *...dass nur Peter Maria einen Streich spielen wollte F .
b. *...dass Peter nur Maria einen Streich spielen wollte F .
c. ...dass Peter Maria nur einen Streich spielen wollte F .
d. *...dass Peter Maria einen Streich nur spielen wollte F .
...that Peter Mary a prank
only play wanted
...that Peter only wanted to play a prank on Mary.
...ich bezweifle, dass er sie ärgern wollte.
...I doubt he wanted to annoy her.’
Finally, we also have to consider the case where the direct object is not part of the focus
domain. (9d) shows that the direct object cannot precede the focus adverb if it is part of
the focus. The following examples illustrate that the judgements shift as expected if the
direct object does not form part of the focus of the adverb. We will refer to sentences in
which only the verb is in focus as V-focus sentences.
(10)
Warum hat Peter Marias Fahrrad umgedreht? Ich glaube, ...
‘Why has Peter Mary’s bike turned.around? I think...
a. *...dass nur Peter Maria das Fahrrad reparieren wollte F .
b. *...dass Peter nur Maria das Fahrrad reparieren wollte F .
c. *...dass Peter Maria nur das Fahrrad reparieren wollte F .
d. ...dass Peter Maria das Fahrrad nur reparieren wollteF .
...that Peter Mary the bike
only repair wanted
...that Peter only wanted to repair the bike for Mary.
5
...Ich bezweifle, dass er es unbedingt umdrehen wollte.
...I doubt that he intended to turn it upside-down.’
An obvious question to ask at this point is whether it is possible that e.g. both the
subject and the direct object, but not the indirect object are in the focus, and if it is, where
the focus particle is placed.
(11)
Warum ist Marias Fahrrad umgedreht? Ich glaube, ...
‘Why is Mary’s bike upside-down? I think...
a. ...dass nur irgendwer Maria das Fahrrad reparieren wollte F .
b. *...dass irgendwer nur Maria das Fahrrad reparieren wollte F .
c. *...dass irgendwer Maria nur das Fahrrad reparieren wollte F .
d. *...dass irgendwer Maria das Fahrrad nur reparieren wollte F .
...that someone Mary the bike
only repair wanted
...that someone only wanted to repair the bike for Mary,...
...ich bezweifle, dass jemand Maria ärgern wollte.
...I doubt that someone wanted to annoy Mary.’
In this case it looks as if the focus is discontinuous, or that there are two foci which
associate with the operator. The operator has to precede the first of the two. Note that,
according to Precedence and Adjacency we would expect (12) to the the adequate sentence rather than (10a-d)). Scrambling the indirect object Maria over the subject irgendwer
as in (12), however, is only possible under a contrastive reading of the indirect object (e.g.
‘It wasn’t Paul, it was Mary who someone only repaired the bike for.’)
(12)
...dass Maria nur irgendwer das Fahrrad reparieren wollte F .
...that Mary only someone the bike repair wanted
‘...that someone only wanted to repair the bike for Mary.’
Before we turn to discuss violations to the above stated generalization, adjacency and
precedence in section 3 and 4, we briefly discuss some differences and shared features
between English and German, which relate to what has already been established above
about German.
2.2
Comparison to English
Word order variation exists also in English. However, some focus-sensitive adverbs, e.g.
‘always’, are much more restricted in their distribution than their German counterparts.
(13)
I think...
a. ...that
b. ...that
c. ...that
d. ...that
only/also/*always Peter lent Mary a book.
Peter only/also/always lent Mary a book.
Peter lent only/also/*always Mary a book.
Peter lent a book only/also/*always to Mary.
6
Also, the effects of the word order changes in (13) are different from those we observed
in German. All of the four contexts discussed in the German examples for sentence-wide
focus as in (5), broad focus as in (7), V-DO focus as in (9), and V-focus as in (10) are
compatible with one and the same word order in English, where ‘only’ precedes the main
verb of the sentence. In the terminology established in the preceding section, (14a) has
sentence-wide focus, (14b) has broad focus, (14c) is a V-DO focus sentence, and (14d) is a
V-focus sentence.
(14)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Sòmeone only plàyed a pránk on someone.
Pèter only repàired the bı́ke for someone.
Pèter only repàired the bı́ke for Mary.
Pèter only repáired the bike for Mary.
Nevertheless, in the particular examples given here, the two languages both obey (6)
and (8) - with one exception: the subject can be part of the focus of only even when it
precedes the adverb. This is reminiscent of the cases in German related to V2 sentences in
the preceding section.
The examples in (14) also differ from those discussed for German in that the nuclear
stress shifts depending on the focus where by nuclear stress we mean the last pitch accent
of the sentence. However, similar effects of deaccenting can be observed in German if the
focus is followed by constituents that are not part of of the focus. Consider a case were only
the subject is the focus of nur.
(15)
Hat jemand die Prüfung bestanden? Ich glaube,...
‘Did anyone pass the exam? I think...
a. ...dass nur Péter die Prüfung bestanden hat.
b. *...dass nur Pèter die Prúefung bestanden hat.
c. *...dass nur Pèter die Prüfung bestánden hat.
...that only Peter the exam
passed
has
’...that only Peter passed the exam.’
The crucial difference between the two languages arises when looking at focus operators
taking single arguments as their focus domain. As outlined at the beginning of this paper
in (1), below repeated as (16), the following are possible in English:
(16)
a. Peter only gave Máry F a book.
b. Peter only gave Mary a bóokF .
Note that the focus adverb is linearly separated from its focus by the verb in (16a),
and by the verb and the indirect object in (16b), so both times material that is not part
of the focus separates the focus-sensitive operator and its focus. This is in contrast to
the generalization in (8) which seems to hold for the German counterpart of ’only’ (nur).
Further differences between the two languages emerge when comparing the distribution of
different focus-sensitive operators within each language - this data is the focus of section
7
5. In the following two sections, we discuss systematic exceptions to the generalizations
about precedence, as stated in (6), and adjacency, as stated in (8), in the distribution
of focus-sensitive operators in German.
3
Violations of Adjacency
The first type of systematic exceptions to be discussed relates to cases where the focussensitive operator is not adjacent to its focus, violating (8). Most of the observations go
back to Jacobs (1983); Büring and Hartmann (2001).
Even when the focus of a focus-sensitive operator is a constituent inside of the verbal
complex in the right periphery, it has to precede the complex (17a), it cannot be placed
inside of it (17b). Similarly, the operator cannot directly precede the verb in second position
when it associates with it (17c). The appropriate word order for this latter case is discussed
in the next section.
(17)
a. Siglinde hat nur kommen wollen F .
b. *Siglinde hat kommen nur wollenF .
Siglinde has come
only wanted
c. *Peter nur sahF den Apfel.
Peter only saw the apple
This indicates that focus-sensitive operators cannot combine with submaximal projections. Generalization 3 overrides adjacency.
(18)
Generalization 3: (to be revised)
Focus-sensitive Operators attach only to maximal projections.
Another violation of adjacency becomes apparent when looking at complements other
than DP-complements. DP-complements can undergo scrambling in German, which turns
out to be a crucial factor in the pattern described to motivate (8). A focus-sensitive operator
is not adjacent to its focus, but separated by a constituent that is not part of it, if this
constituent cannot undergo scrambling (Büring and Hartmann, 2001). 8 Note that this
restriction may also reflect back on the facts discussed to motivate (18), since parts of the
verbal cluster cannot scramble either.
To further clarify this point, consider the case of Goal-PP arguments (cf. Büring and
Hartmann, 2001). Unlike DP-arguments, goal-PPs cannot scramble and can therefore not
be placed to the left of sentence level adverbs, as illustrated by the following example.
(19)
a. Peter ist (wahrscheinlich) in die Stadt (*wahrscheinlich) gefahren.
Peter is probably
in the city yesterday
driven
‘Peter drove into town yesterday.’
8
We assume that ‘scrambling’ involves adjunction to VP or some higher maximal projection - so when
‘only’ appears to the right of a scrambled constituent, it is actually left-adjoined to the VP and thus does
not violate (18). an in-depth discussion of scrambling is beyond the scope of this paper.
8
b. Peter hat (wahrscheinlich) Maria (wahrscheinlich) das Buch (wahrscheinlich)
Peter has probably
Maria probably
the book probably
gegeben.
given
‘Peter probably gave the book to Mary.’
Now consider the following data where nur cannot be immediately adjacent to the verb
it associates with.
(20)
Warum kannst Du das Motorrad nicht in die Garage tragen?
‘Why can’t you carry the motor-bike into the garage?
a. Weil man das Motorrad nur in die Garage fahrenF kann.
b. *
Weil
man das Motorrad in die Garage nur fahrenF kann.
can
because one the motorbike in the garage only drive
Because one can only drive the car into the garage.
...Ich bezweifle, dass jemand es in die Garage tragen könnte.
...I doubt that someone could carry it into the garage.’
It seems that placing a focus-sensitive operator adjacent to its focus is contingent on
the possibility of scrambling intervening material ‘out of the way’. This is confirmed by the
fact that other constituents that cannot undergo scrambling, such as adjectival complements
(21)a,b) and resultatives (21c,d), behave accordingly (Büring and Hartmann, 2001):
(21)
a. ...weil man sich nur traurig fühltF .
b. *...weil
man sich
traurig nur fühltF .
...because one oneself sad
only feels
c. ...weil ich sie nur in den Schlaf singenF würde.
d. *...weil
ich sie in den Schlaf nur singenF würde.
would
...because I she in the sleep only sing
That scrambling is generally not an option in those cases is illustrated in (22).
(22)
a. ...weil man sich wahrscheinlich traurig fühlt.
b. *...weil
man sich
traurig wahrscheinlich fühlt.
...because one oneself sad
probably
feels
c. ...weil ich sie wahrscheinlich in den Schlaf singen würde.
d. *...weil
ich sie in den Schlaf wahrscheinlich singen würde.
...because I she in the sleep only
sing would
These sit well with the generalization in (18) which requires a maximal projection as the
complement of focus-sensitive adverbs. Note that if these constituents cannot scramble out
of VP the cases in (20b) and (21b,d) would involve attaching ‘only’ to a subconstituent V’
9
of VP. This, however, presupposes that the focus-adverb cannot attach to the PP or an AP
itself, at least when they are complements of the verb. It turns out that there is independent
evidence that focus-sensitive adverbs cannot attached to arguments, as shown in Büring and
Hartmann (2001). These arguments involve another set of cases where the focus-operator
is not adjacent to its focus involves complex nominals. Focus-sensitive operators cannot be
placed inside a complex nominal.
(23)
a. Siglinde hat nur die Freunde von Peter F besucht.
b. *Siglinde hat die Freunde (nur) von (nur) PeterF besucht.
Siglinde has the friends only of only Peter visited
‘Siglinde only visited the friends of Peter.’
These facts were used by Büring and Hartmann (2001) (following Jacobs (1983, 46))
to argue that focus-sensitive particles can only attach to verbal projections and their extensions, but not to DPs. In addition, focus-sensitive operators cannot attach directly to
CPs.
(24)
a. Peter hat nur gesagt dass er kommen wird.
Peter has only said that he come will
b. *Peter hat gesagt nur dass er kommen wird.
Peter has said only that he come will
‘Peter only said that he will come.’
The claim that DPs (and CPs) cannot combine with ‘only’ seem to be refuted by the
examples in(25).
(25)
a. Nur dass es schneitF glaube ich nicht.
believe I not
only that it snows
‘I only don’t believe that it snows.’
b. Nur PeterF schnarcht.
only Peter snores
Both Jacobs (1983); Büring and Hartmann (2001) give evidence that an analysis where
the focus-adverb and its focus form a constituent in (25) is not appropriate - contra the
common assumption that everyting preceding the verb in first position forms a constituent.
Environments that unambiguously force attachment with a DP or a CP are ungrammatical
(24), and (26) (Jacobs, 1983, 45).
(26)
*Peter und nur MariaF treffen sich.
Peter and only mary met each.other
To summarize the observations so far: (i) ‘nur’ can only attach with maximal projections;
(ii) ‘nur’ cannot combine with CP or DP. The sentence initialnur is then analyzed as a
syntactically adjoined to a verbal projection.
10
We can capture both (i) and (ii) by revising generalization 3 in (18) in the following
way:9
(27)
Generalization 3: (final version)
Focus-sensitive Operators only attach to maximal verbal projections.
Nur (‘only’) can attach to any projection of VP, but not to subconstituents verbal heads
V0 (17) or subconstituents of V’ (20,21), which is predicted by (27). Also, it captures that
nur cannot attach to argument DPs (23) or CPs (24).
In all cases discussed in this section, the operator is placed in a position that is not
adjacent to its focus domain, but a constituent that is not part of the focus intervenes,
in violation of the generalization about adjacency (8). It looks then as if the possible
adjunction sites for focus adverbs and other types of sentential adverbs are the same. Note,
however, that we do not intend to make claim about the relation beween associated material
of focus of adverbs and the scope of sentential adverbs.
4
Violations of Precedence
The second type of exceptions are cases where constituents that are the focus of the operator,
or at least form part of the focus, precede the focus operator in the middle field or pre-V 2 ,
violating (6). These observations go back to Jacobs (1983).
4.1
Shift in the Middle Field
Given (cf. Schwarzschild, 1999, and citations therein) DP-pronouns (i.e. non-contrastively
used pronouns) and other Given DPs differ in their syntactic distribution from non-Given
DP arguments.
In general, DP arguments follow sentence level adverbs. If, however, they are Given,
they may precede sentence level adverbs. The placement of pronouns and full-DPs to the
right of adverbs that take semantic scope over them is familiar from patterns of object shift
9
There are some apparent counterexamples to that hypothesis, like ones given below in (a) and (b) below,
where ‘nur’ occurs within a DP. However, note that only scalar adjectives can be modified by this kind of
nur, as (c) shows. Though the color ‘yellow’ provides a clear set of alternatives it cannot associate with
nur in its non-scalar reading. It thus seems that non-scalar nur cannot be adjoined to adjectival or nominal
N’-projection.
(1)
a. der (nur) guteF (*nur) Wein
Intended: ‘the wine which is only good (and not amazing)’
b. der (nur) drei Jahre alteF (*nur) Wein
Intended: ‘the wine which is only three years old (and not amazing)’
c. der (*nur) gelbeF (*nur) Wagen
Intended: ‘the car which is only yellow (and contains not other color)’
Jacobs (1983) argues that ‘nur’ can combine with numerals and certain quantifiers; Büring and Hartmann
(2001) argue that these cases actually involve attaching ‘nur’ to adjectival phrases. For reasons of time and
space we will not discuss the distribution of ‘nur’ within DPs any further at this point.
11
as observed in the Scandinavian languages, where discourse antecedent material is placed to
the left of certain sentence-level adverbs. The pattern of this type of information structure
driven ‘shift’ leaving semantic scope intact is described for German and related to the object
shift in Scandinavian in (Wagner, 2003).
Pronominal DP arguments have to precede sentence level adverbs. Consider the following examples with pronouns. The alternatives marked with a star in (28b) - (28d) are only
possible if the pronoun receives a contrastive accent:
(28)
Ich glaube dass...
‘I think that...
a. ...wahrscheinlich irgendwer irgendwem irgendwas geklaut hat.
...probably
someone someone.dat something stolen has
‘...probably somone stole something from someone.’
b. ...*(er) wahrscheinlich (*er) irgendwem irgendwas geklaut hat.
c. ...er *(ihm) wahrscheinlich (*ihm) irgendwas geklaut hat.
d. ...er ihm *(es) wahrscheinlich (*es) geklaut hat.
...he him it
probably
it
stolen has
...that he probably has stolen it from him’
A similar pattern can be observed when looking at focus-sensitive adverbs. Pronouns
that are part of the focus of an operator often have to precede the focus adverb. The
following examples illustrate that reflexive pronouns (29a), reciprocal pronouns (29b), and
pronouns (29c) precede the focus operators even when they are part of the focus. As in the
other examples, we use continuations to test for the focus assignment.
(29)
a. Peter hat sich nur die Finger gewaschen f ,
anstatt ein Bad zu nehmen.
‘Peter only washed his fingers instead of taking a bath.‘
b. Peter und Luise haben einander nur viel Glück gewünschtF ,
sie haben sich nicht gegenseitig geholfen.
‘Peter and Luise only wished each other good luck, they didn’t help each other.’
c. Peteri hat ihn nur nach Hause gefahrenF , eri ist nicht abgereist.
‘Peter only drove him home, he didn’t leave town yet.’
In fact, placing them after the focus adverb in the case they are given contexts is
infelicitous.
(30)
a. *Peter hat nur sich die Finger gewaschen F ,
anstatt ein Bad zu nehmen.
‘Peter only washed his fingers instead of taking a bath.‘
b. *Peter und Luise haben nur einander viel Glück gewünscht F ,
sie haben sich nicht gegenseitig geholfen.
‘Peter and Luise only whished each other good luck, they didn’t help each other.’
12
c. *Peter hat nur ihn nach Hause gefahrenF ,
er ist nicht abgereist.
‘Peter only drove him home, he didn’t leave town yet.’
The only case in which a pronoun can occur after a focus adverb is if the adverb exclusively associates with the pronoun. More precisely, contrastively accented pronouns have
to follow the focus adverb.
(31)
a. Peter mag nur Maria F , nicht KarlF .
‘Peter only likes Mary, not Karl.’
Nein, ich glaube er mag (*IHN F ) nur IHNF .
‘No, I think he only likes HIM.’
b. Peter und Hans kennen nur Maria F .
‘Peter and Hans only like Mary.’
Nein, ich glaube sie kennen (*EINANDER F ) nur EINANDERF .
‘No, I think they only know EACH OTHER.’
c. Peter hat nur MariaF gewaschen.
‘Peter only cleaned Mary.’
Nein, ich glaube er hat (*SICHF ) nur SICHF gewaschen.
‘No, I think he only cleaned himSELF.’
Similar to pronouns, full-DP arguments may precede focus-adverbs, but only if they are
Given. In this case, however, placing the DP after the focus adverb is not infelicitous, as
was the case for the pronouns, but if anything at most disprefered.
(32)
Warum ist Peter Mutter sauer auf Maria? Irgendwas schlimmes?
‘Why is Peter’s mother upset with Mary? Anything serious?’
a. Peter hat Maria nur ein Buch vorgelesen F , anstatt für seine Prüfung zu lernen.
b. Peter hat nur Maria ein Buch vorgelesen F , anstatt für seine Prüfung zu lernen.
‘Peter has only read a book to Mary instead of studying for his exam.‘
The following generalization captures the patterns described in this section.
(33)
Generalization 4:
DPs in the focus domain of a focus-sensitive operator can precede the operator if
they are Given.
If we analyze the shifting of given material as movement across the focus-sensitive adverb, then the data discussed here may indicate that generalization (6) holds true prior to
certain types of movement. We will come back to this later.
4.2
V2 Complications
So far we have mainly presented material from embedded clauses, which in German are
Vfinal . Several complications arise when taking sentences with V 2 order in consideration.
13
V2 refers to the word order in matrix sentences and certain embedded sentences in German,
in which in general exactly one syntactic constituent precedes the finite verb (or auxiliary),
followed by the rest of the sentence( [XP V ....]). Contrary to English, a wider array of
constituents than just the subject is eligible to fill the ‘first position’. 10 In this section, we
will consider sentences with [XP V Focus-Sensitive-Operator] word order.
First of all, the finite verb in second position can be part of the focus of a focus-sensitive
adverb, even though it precedes it (34a), violating generalization (6). In fact, it is impossible
to place the adverb in any position preceding the verb if the verb is in the focus of the adverb
(34b,c).
(34)
Warum ist Peter enttäuscht?
‘Why is Peter disappointed?’
a. Der Korken zischte F nur.
b. *...nur zischte F der Korken.
c. *...nur der Korken zischteF .
...only the cork
fizzed...
Er hat nicht geknallt.
Intended: ‘The cork just fizzed... It didn’t pop.’
It is hard to tell if only the verb or the verb and the subject are in focus. 11 The
continuation is intended to rule out this possibility. However, it is clearly the case that the
verb can be part of the focus in a context that facilitates association with both the subject
and the verb:
(35)
Was ist passiert? Brennt das Haus? Nein, ...
‘What has happened? Is the house burning? No, ...
a. ...Peter kocht F nur.
b. *...nur kocht PeterF .
c. *...nur Peter kocht F .
...only Peter cooks
Intended: ‘Peter only cooks.’
The verb, more generally, can be part of the focus, even when material follows the
focus-operator. Consider the following example.
(36)
Was hat Peter diesen Sommer spannendes gemacht?
‘Did Peter do any exiting over the summer?’
10
Jacobs (1983); Büring and Hartmann (2001) discuss some problems with the generalization that only
one syntactic constituents can fill the first position. We will not address these objections in detail here, since
they do not directly bear on the discussion in this section.
11
This uncertainty is in and of itself an interesting fact but we have no hint at how to explain this at the
moment.
14
Pèter schwamm nur ein paar Mal im MeerF .
Peter swam
only a few times in.the ocean
...Er ist aber nicht verreist.
...‘But he didn’t travel anywhere.’
All of the above is not surprising if one considers that the verb in the above clauses
observes the Wackernagel generalization, that is, it occurs in second position preceded by a
maximal projection. It is noteworthy, however, that generalization 3 and 4 would not rule
out adjunction of nur to the left of the verb (assuming that the verb is the head of an IP).
Nevertheless, nur can only occur after the verb in sentences like the ones above.
In the example in (34), it is clear that the entire focus of nur precedes the operator, since
nothing follows it. In the example in (36), only part of the focus precedes the operator,
and the material following it is also part of its focus. Association with the verb seems also
possible when more material follows the operator, as in the following example (37a). The
continuation is intended to rule out the possibility that the operator does not just associate
with the fronted constituent but has sentence-wide focus (37b).
(37)
Muss Peter alle Aufsätze bis Freitag fertig haben?
‘Does Peter have to finish all papers by Friday?’
a. Pèter wı́llF nur die Aufsätze bis Freitag fertig haben.
b. ?Pèter wı́llF nur die Aufsätze bis Freitag fertig habenF .
Peter wants only the articles until Friday done have.
...Er muss aber zumindest je einen Entwurf fertigstellen.
‘...But he must finish a least a draft for each.’
In this example, the material following the verb is deaccented, contrastive stress is on
the verb. The focus might actually involve the entire material after the adverb as well - it
is not easy to show that the focus really only comprises the verb. The continuation in (37)
is intended to rule out the possibility of VP-wide focus (37b) - but we are not confident
that it really does.
(34), (36), and (37) all constitute counterexamples to the generalization that a focussensitive operator always precedes its focus: at least part of the focus precedes the operator
in all three examples. Keep it mind, however, what we said at the end of the preceding
section. It seems that precedence holds prior to certain movements. Let us for now make
a mental note that syntactically enforced V final -to-V2 movement could be such a movement.
A similar pattern to the one observed with the verb in second position can be observed
with respect to the constituent in first position. As shown in (35), an argument in this
position can be part of the focus of nur. Below, we give a further example.
(38)
Was ist den das für ein Lärm?
‘What is this noise?’
ist alles
in Ordnung.
Peter schnarcht nur. Sonst
Peter snores
only. otherwise is everything in order
15
‘Peter is just snoring. Nothing else.’
The constituent in first position can also be part of the focus if more material follows
the focus-sensitive operator.
(39)
Was ist denn passiert?
‘What happened?’
Péter hat nur Marı̀a ein Búch geliehen F .
Peter has only Mary a book lent
‘Peter has only lent Mary a book...
...sonst ist nichts passiert.
...nothing else happened.’
Again, it is not obvious whether or not the first position can be the focus of the adverb all
by itself. In a context where all other material apart from the first constituent is deaccented
(e.g. a contrastive context), it looks as if the adverb only associates with the subject (40a).
There is an alternative word order to express association with the subject: the order in
(40b) where the subject follows the focus-sensitive adverb. According to the judgements
of five subjects, the sentence in (40b) is uncontroversially acceptable. The judgements on
(40a) vary from outright rejection (one speaker) to various degrees of acceptability. In direct
comparison most speakers preferred (40b) over (40a).
(40)
Hat jeder Maria ein Geschenk mitgebracht?
‘Did everyone give a present to Mary?’
a. ?Péter F hat nur Maria ein Geschenk mitgebracht.
b. Nur PéterF hat nur Maria ein Geschenk mitgebracht
only peter has only mary a present brought
...Er hat auch allen anderen ein Geschenk gegeben. Die anderen haben zumindest
Maria gar nichts geschenkt.
‘...He also gave a present to everyone else. The others didn’t give anything to Mary,
only to each other.’
The methodological problem we are faced with in this case - apart from the variation
in judgements - is to come up with a context that can can safely rule out the possibility
that the actual association comprises the entire sentence. The additional complication of
contrastive accent on the subject might render the sentence in (40a) acceptable in the
context we created, even with sentence-wide focus, at least for those speakers who accept
it. In other words, the actual association might be the one in (41). 12
12
However, it is clearly not the case that association with the constituent in first position is always
possible in German. When an accent follows the focus-sensitive operator, it is impossible (1). Since we
did not consistently test under which circumstances association with a constituent is possible when further
accented constituents follow it, we are not sure how to interpret this fact at this point.
16
(41)
Péter hat nur Maria ein Geschenk mitgebracht. F .
Peter has only mary a present brought
A similar example from English is the following:
(42)
... She barely knows him and doesn’t want to. Everyone else likes him. We have
talked about getting married. My dad only knows. He supports me 100%. ...
www.crm.mb.ca/granny/88.html
The data presented in this section support at least the following generalizations about
association with material in the first position and the verb in second position, when the
operator follows the verb.
(43)
Generalization 5: Association with First and Second Position in Matrix
Clauses
a. The constituents in the first position and the verb in second position can be
part of the focus of a following focus-sensitive operator.
b. If an accent follows the focus-sensitive adverb, the focus cannot entirely precede
the adverb.
The generalization in (a) captures the cases where part of the focus precedes a focussensitive adverb. The generalization in (b) captures (1) in footnote (12) below, and might
provide further motivation for the hypothesis that in cases where part of the focus precedes
the adverb in 1st position focus is sentence-wide, as discussed above, and if the focus includes
the verb in V2 position the focus is at least broad focus. If this latter claim can be further
motivated, then the true generalization may be cleaner and could then be stated as follows:
A focus-sensitive adverb following the inflected verb in a V 2 sentence (and the pronouns
attached to it) can extend its focus to the left and include either the verb (and the pronouns
attached to it) or both the first position and the verb.
The data concerning V2 sentences in German illustrates some surface violations of the
generalization that focus-sensitive adverbs precede their focus, i.e. precedence as stated
in (6). If placing the verb in second position and placing an XP in first position both involve
movement, then the generalization (6) may actually hold true for the state of affairs prior
to these movements - similar to the case of scrambling, discussed in section (4.1). We come
back to movement and its effect in the final section.
There is another set of cases where the focus operator does not precede its focus. These
observations involve extraction of the focus and will be discussed in section 5.3, since they
serve to illustrate that not all focus-sensitive operators are alike regarding their distribution.
(1)
?Pèter hat nur Maria ein Geschénk mitgebracht.
Peter has only Mary a present brought
‘Peter only brought Mary a present.
17
5
Differences among Focus-Sensitive Operators
So far we have talked about ”focus-sensitive operators” and ”focus adverbs” without distinguishing further among them. A closer examination of the distribution of German focus
adverbs reveals a much more complex situation. Just looking at the three focus-sensitive
adverbs nur ‘only’, auch ‘also/too’, and immer ‘always’ it is striking that sometimes nur
and auch and sometimes auch and immer pattern together. In the following paragraphs
we summarize some interesting differences in the distribution of the three adverbs and clarify which of those differences are directly related to focus and which - arguably - are not.
Some comparative data from English serves to further illustrate the complexities of the
distributional patterns.
5.1
Sentence Initial Focus-Sensitive Operators
In English, only only (of the three above-mentioned operators) can occur sentence initially,
as shown in (44).13
(44)
a. Only in SiberiaF it snows.
b. ??Also/*too in SiberiaF it snows.
c. *Always in SiberiaF it snows.
German shows a different grouping of the three adverbs. Both nur and auch can occur
sentence initially but immer cannot. Compare the examples in (45) with (44).
(45)
a. Nur in SibirienF schneit es.
b. Auch in SibirienF schneit es.
c. *Immer in SibirienF schneit es.
Note that German auch lacks variant comparable to English too, i.e., a focus-sensitive
operator that is obligatorily placed after its focus. This difference seems to be a lexical
idiosyncrasy rather than a direct consequence of the way how focus is realized in German.
In English, the exclusiveness operator only and the operator also can occur after the NP it
associates with, and both can receive stress in this case. Also, in contrast to only, seems to
prefer stress here, at least unless the subject is contrastively focused.
(46)
a.
b.
c.
d.
The U.S.F only/ónly has the right to declare war.
The U.S.F also/álso has the right to declare war.
The U.S.F *too/tóo has the right to declare war.
?The U.S.F álways has the right to declare war.
The possibility of stressed also post-nominally is well attested in real-life examples, the
unstressed version is at least harder to get. We tested the stressed version with examples
collected from Google eliciting people’s intuition about the pronunciation.
13
The sentence in (44b) may be possible with also when the subject is contrastively focused.
18
(47)
a. ... Mainers must continue to realize that other people also have freedoms or
individual wishes - others, too, have individual rights. ...
www.state.me.us/sos/kids/fyigames/2003essay.htm
b. ... law. They also choose not to recognise that other people also have rights.
Group peer pressure is very strong among young people. ...
www.sm.org.nz/soapbox.asp?SoapboxID=69 - 15k
c. ...Many other people also have access to the shared files and folders on the G
drive. If you have been granted ...
www.lcc.edu/helpdesk/network/network e mployees.htm
German nur differs from English only in that it cannot receive an accent when it occurs
post-nominally ((48a) as opposed to (46a)). Furthermore, German differs from English in
not that auch may not occur post-nominally.
(48)
a. Die USAF nur/*núr haben das Recht, Krieg zu erklären.
b. *Die USAF auch/áuch haben das Recht, Krieg zu erklären.
c. *Die USAF immer/ı́mmer hat das Recht, Krieg zu erklären.
Together with the observations in (45, 44), it seems then that with respect to linear
order in the first position, also and auch have a complementary distribution in the presence
of an associated nominal argument: also can only follow it, while auch can only precede its
focus DP. Only and nur, on the other hand, have similar distributions with respect to linear
order in first position, but differ with respect to their stress properties, since postnominal
nur cannot be stressed (48a), but postnominal only can (46a). In both languages, the two
respective focus adverbs differ in distribution.
We will not attempt to explain this pattern in this paper. The cases where the focussensitive operator follows its focus in first position constitute counter-examples to the generalization about precedence in (6). In section (4) we considered the possibility that the
generalization may hold true prior to certain movements. The next step would then be
to look for evidence that the problematic examples involving association in first position
are derived, and our generalizations hold and earlier derivational stage. Simillar issues are
discussed in the section (5.3).
5.2
Discourse Marker vs. Focus-Sensitive Adverb
There is a further interesting detail distinguishing the German focus adverbs auch and nur,
discussed in (Altmann, 1978; Jacobs, 1983). Compared to the contrasts in the positional
differences discussed in the preceding section, these alleged differences are not entirely clearcut, however. German focus adverbs have a use where they seem to contribute a dicourses
related meaning, rather than associate with any particular constituent in the sentence,
similar to their English counterparts. 14 In matrix sentences, these discourse particle uses
of auch and nur they can fill the first position without any further material.
14
We are not sure about how to define these sure of focus adverbs exactly. Jacobs (1983) uses the term
Konjunktion ‘conjunction’.
19
The example in (49) shows that both auch and nur can be used encoding a meaning
that connects the sentences with preceding sentences in the discourse. Jacobs does not
mention immer. It might not be a discourse ”conjunction” as meant by Jacobs, still the
use of immer in (49c) does not only mean ’always’ but has a discourse related meaning.
Independent of the lexical contents of the remaining sentence, immer in a construction such
as the one in (49c) can only be interpreted as an exclamation (most likely a complaint).
We have highlighted the adverbs and their translations by italics.
(49)
a. Schön und gut das du dort hin willst. Nur schneit es in Sibirien.
’Fair enough that you want to go there. The only thing is, it snows in Sibiria.’
b. Ich glaube, dass wird schwieriger als du denkst. Das Visum ist schwer zu bekommen. Auch schneit es in Sibirien.
’I think, this will be more difficult than you believe. The Visa is hard to come
by. The other thing is: it snows in Sibiria.’
c. Immer wählen die uns aus!
’(Damn it!) Always they choose us.’
Altmann (1978); Jacobs (1983) claim that the adverb auch can fill the first position
preceding the verb in a V2 clause without being interpreted as conjunctive discourse marker
and associating with material within the following sentence. This, they argue, is impossible
in the case of nur. Consider the example in (50). Auch, the claim goes, can occur without
being interpreted as discourse conjunction, and associates with the following constituent.
In the following example, this type of reading is at least hard to get, however.
(50)
Ich denke, dies ist irrelevant, denn...
’I think (that) this is irrelevant since...’
a. *...nur schneit es im Winter F .
b. ?...auch schneit es im Winter F .
c. ?...immer schneit es im Winter F .
Intended: ’Only/also/always it snows during the winter.’
We think that, in a contrastive interpretation, immer sounds slightly better then the
two other adverbs, but all of them seem odd. We find the judgment subtle and not clear
cut, but they do not yield a clear difference between auch and nur. 15
The contrast between auch and nur in (51) seems to be clearer (cited after Jacobs (1983,
5)). This piece of evidence was used in earlier studies to show differences between auch and
nur. The example would constitute a violation of the generalization on adjacency (8),
since the verb intervenes between the operator and its focus.
(51)
15
a. ?Auch behielt sie die gemeinsam bewohnte Villa F .
Intended: ’She also kept the villa they lived together in (apart from keeping
something else).’
Note that (50) does neither violate the generalization in (6) nor the one in (8).
20
b. *Nur behielt sie die gemeinsam bewohnte Villa F .
Intended: ’She only kept the villa they lived together in.’
The sentence in (51a) can be used to express that, apart from something else, someone
(‘she’) also kept the villa in question, apart from other things. The sentence in (51b), on
the other hand, cannot express that the only thing the person kept was the villa. While the
contrast between the two sentences seems clear, the interpretation of this contrast is less
than obvious. The English paraphrases in (51) may help to illustrate the issue.
(52)
a. Did she keep any of the stuff after the divorce? She kept the piano.
The other thing is/Additionally, she kept the villa they lived in together.
b. Did she keep any of the stuff after the divorce?
??The only thing is/Only/It’s just, that she kept the villa they lived in together.
Our sentence in (51b) is a grammatical way to express something like the English answer
in (52b). But this English version is infelicitous in the context in (52), at least it cannot
express the relevant meaning expressing assocation of the DP with only - just like our
German sentence. It appears that it would be equally odd to use this English paraphrase
in this context in order to express that the only thing that someone kept was the villa. The
pattern in (52) is due to the difference in meaning between the discourse related uses of the
focus adverbs.
Consider now the English example (52a). Using this sentence seems much more felicitous. It clearly is not identical in meaning to ‘She also kept the villa they lived in together.’,
but it is compatible with a context where someone wants to communicate this fact (perhaps via implication: something else happened, and in this context it is plausible that it
was another keeping-event) and also indicate that this has some further implications at the
discourse level. The parallel between the judgements in English and German illustrates
that the German judgements in (51) are not sufficient to support the claim that (51a) has
a reading where the DP associates with the adverb.
Our intuition is that similar to the English example in (52a), a discourse related meaning
component necessarily forms part of the German sentence in (51a), and that the auch in
this sentence is in fact the discourse-marking version of the adverb and does not associate
with the DP (and therefore our marking of the association in (51) and the dicussion in
Altmann (1978); Jacobs (1983) is actually based on a misinterpretation of this sentence).
If this is correct, then a context that really assures association with of the focus-sensitive
adverb with the DP should be incompatible with the response in (51a) - contra Altmann
(1978); Jacobs (1983). A context like the one in (52), as the English example shows, is not
sufficient to force such a reading. The context (53) does force association with the DP, and indeed is not compatible with the adverb in first position.
(53)
Hat sie nur das Auto behalten?
‘Did she only keep the car?
a. *Auch behielt sie die gemeinsam bewohnte Villa F .
Intended: ’She also kept the villa they lived together in (apart from keeping the
car).’
21
b. Sie behielt auch die gemeinsam bewohnte Villa F .
’She also kept the villa they lived together in.’
We cannot conclude from this one example that association of the focus-sensitive adverb
auch with the DP is impossible whenever the adverb fills the first position, but it seems
that the claim that it can take the DP as its focus cannot be substantiated based on the
data discussed. Both nur and auch might after all only receive a dicourse-related meaning
here, and thus might not differ in this respect after all, contrary to earlier discussions of
this data. If this is correct, then example such as (51) do not constitute counterexamples
to our generalization on adjacency in (8).
5.3
Association with Preceding Material: auch vs. nur
Finally, nur and auch seem to behave differently with respect to pronouns (or other given
NPs) which constitute the exclusive (non-contrastive) focus of the operator. The adverb
auch can associate with the subject pronoun even if the pronoun precedes the adverb, as
in (54b). The adverb has to be stresssed, in order to associate with the fronted focus, and
the material following the adverb has to be destressed.
(54)
Ich verstehe ja, dass Peter und Maria über den Krieg reden. Sie sind schliesslich
direkt davon betroffen. Aber warum redet Christian über nichts anderes?
‘I understand why Peter and Mary talk about the war. After all they are directly
affected by it. But why did Christian talk about nothing else but the war?’
a. Weil
auch erF mit einem Soldaten verheiratet ist.
soldier married
is
Because too he with a
b. Weil
erF áuch/*auch mit einem Soldaten verheiratet ist.
with a
soldier married
is
Because he too
‘Because he, too, is married to a soldier.’
This is not possible with nur, as shown in (55b) - at least when the focus adverb is
stressed. According to Jacobs (1983, 101), untressed nur is generally able to associate with
a fronted focus. Testing this claim is not trivial, due the confounding influences of the
contrast on the subject, which is involved both for (54b) and (55b) - we are not confident
at this point about the judgements.
(55)
Warum redet Christian eigentlich so betroffen über den Krieg?
Die anderen scheinen doch ok zu sein.
‘Why is Christian so affected by the war? Everyone else seems to be ok.’
a. Weil
nur erF mit einem Soldaten verheiratet ist.
Because only he with a
soldier married
is
b. Weil
erF *ńur/?nur mit einem Soldaten verheiratet ist.
Because he only
with a
soldier married
is
‘Because only he is married to a soldier.’
22
The fact that auch and nur differ with respect to their behavior with a fronted focus 16
is further supported by the following data.
(56)
a. Manche Schlàgzeuger F spielen áuch/*auch Klavier.
‘Some drùmmers álso play piano.’ (... apart from organ players)
b. Manche Schlàgzeuger spielen auch Klavı́er F .
‘Some drùmmers also play piáno.’ (...apart from playing the drums)
(57)
a. Manche Schlàgzeuger F spielen *núr/?nur Klavier.
b. Manche Schlàgzeuger spielen nur KlávierF .
We are not confident with respect the possible association with nur in (57), and received
conflicting judgments on this point. Both the sentence with stressed auch and with ‘nur’
requires deaccenting of following material. This and the complicating influence of a contrastive accent on the subject make it harder to establish assocation of the adverb. There is,
however, converging evidence that our intuition about the different distribution of nur and
auch is correct. In the following examples, taken from Jacobs (1983, 108, his judgments),
(b) and (d) show that there are cases where nur and sogar cannot associate with preceding
material but accented auch can associate.
(58)
a. Seine MùtterF kommt morgen áuch.
his mother
comes tomorrow also
b. Ich vermùte, daß seine MùtterF morgen áuch kommt.
I think
that his mother
tomorrow also comes
c. Seine MútterF kommt morgen nur/sogar.
his mother
comes tomorrow only/even
d. Ich vermùte, daß seine Mútter morgen ??nur/?sogar kommt.
I think
that his mother tomorrow only/even
comes
To summarize, only and auch differ in distribution with respect to fronted focus. We
leave an account for the observed differences with respect to stress and association for future
research.
6
Summary and Conclusions
Although this paper does not provide a complete picture of the underlying laws of focusassociation with focus-sensitive operators in German, our examination of the interaction of
word order and intonation and its combined effect on association with focus revealed several
generalizations. Those generalizations are, at this point, necessarily very surface-oriented
since we have not - yet - attempted a theoretical explanation of the observed facts and
generalizations.
16
It is important to note that in the cases discussed here all of the focus precedes the focus-sensitive
adverb. We have already seen in section 4.1 that nur can be preceded by parts of its focus.
23
We have examined mainly one focus-sensitive adverb, namely nur (’only’). Below we
repeat the generalizations which hold for the association with nur in (59) where the lower
generalization override the higher ones.
(59)
Summary of Generalizations
a. Generalization 1: Precedence
A focus-sensitive adverb has to precede its focus.
b. Generalization 2: Adjacency
A focus-sensitive operator and its focus cannot be separated by a constituent
that is not part of the focus.
c. Generalization 3:
Focus-sensitive Operators attach only to maximal verbal projections.
d. Generalization 4:
DPs in the focus domain of a focus-sensitive operator can precede the operator
if they are Given.
e. Generalization 5:
i. The constituents in the first position and the verb in second position can be
part of the focus of a following focus-sensitive operator.
ii. If an accent follows the focus-sensitive adverb, the focus cannot entirely
precede the adverb.
The above-stated generalizations are unsatisfying because they do not explain what is
going on. At several points throughout this paper we have hinted at a possible interpretation
of at least a huge chunk of the exceptions (as discussed in section 3 and 4), namely that
adjacency and precedence may hold prior to syntactic movement. The generalization
can then alternatively stated at a more abstract level by saying that the focus particles in
general attach to the constituent they associate with, and subsequent linearization translates
this relation in to precedence and adjacency, unless other factors interfer.
A further simplification that this hypothesis would provide is that generalization 5 could
be derived. given material scrambles for reasons independent of association with focus
towards the beginning of the sentence (see e.g. Lenerz (1977); Müller (1999); Wagner
(2003)) and thereby to the left of the operator. The generalizations of adjacency and
precedence would then follow from the fact that focus particles in general attach to the
constituent they associate with, which results in immediate precedence, unless one of the
complicating factors interfers.17
So far it looks as if one could preserve adjacency and precedence by attention to the
fact that focus-sensitive operators are of a certain syntactic category (i.e. they are sentential
adverbs) and that association with focus happens prior to (certain types of) movement. This
account would also capture the problematic data in (34), (36), (39) and (40) from section
17
Whether or not movement should be taken to explain V2 and scrambling is a question we can not
address at this point and is to a certain degree a theory internal question. Jacobs (1983) argues against a
transformational analysis of the patterns involved. Our main point here is the systematic link between the
generalizations on focus association and and the pattern of V 2 and scrambling phenomena.
24
4.2. We give the hypothetical positions of subject and verb prior to movement below where
we repeat all of the just mentioned examples.
(60)
a. Der Korkenj zischteiF j nur i.
the kork
fizzed
j only i
b. Pèterj schwammi j nur ein paar Mal im MeerF i.
Peter swam
j only a few times in.the ocean i
c. Péterj hati j nur j Marı̀a ein Búch geliehen F i .
i
Peter has j only j mary a book lent
d. ?Péterj F hat j nur j Maria ein Geschenk mitgebracht.
has j only j Mary a present brought
Peter
(60a) is an uninteresting case because nothing follows nur. That is, we cannot test
whether the operator is where we would expect it. (60b), too, is unproblematic since we
cannot use it to contradict the hypothesis. Since the focus spans the entire VP it would
have been adjacent to the focus-sensitive operator in any case (not even paying attention to
the fact that the subject is given in that example). (60c) is accounted for because the finite
part of the verb and subject can independently move to the front out of the big scope of
nur spanning the entire sentence. In (60d) both adjacency and precedence are observed
since the subject would be generated right in front of nur (which only associates with the
subject) and then move to the front.
So far our hypothesis seems to make the right predictions. Moreover, the analysis
of focus-sensitive adverbs has been simplified. The hypothesis correctly relates the focus
possibilities in V2 sentences to the focus possibilities in embedded sentences. In (61a), the
embedded sentence, ‘nur’ is placed in front of the material that cannot be scrambled, the
adjective and the auxiliary ‘haben’, as close to its focus as possible. In (61b), the focus raises
to second position, but prior to movement, the focus-senstive operator properly preceded
its focus.
(61)
a. ...dass Pèter sie/die Aufsätze nur fertig haben wı́ll iF .
b. Pèterj wı́lliF j
sie/die Aufsätze nur fertig haben i.
peter wants them/the articles only
ready have
However, examples like (37) from section 4.2 poses a problem:
(62)
Pèterj wı́lliF j (nur) die Aufsätze bis Freitag (*nur) fertig haben i.
While our hypothesis would explain why the subject is not part of the focus, it would
predict that nur should appear right in front of fertig haben. The DP die Aufsätze and the
PP bis Freitag are given and should move to the left of nur and no syntactic constraints
prevent nur from left-adjoining to the then empty VP fertig haben. That this word order is
possible in the embedded sentence is shown in the following example.
(63)
..., dass Pèter die Aufsätze bis Freitag nur fertig haben wı́ll.
25
The properties of sentences with V2 word order would need some further study to test
whether our hypothesis can explain the full set of facts. To sum up, our hypothesis that
association with focus happens prior to movement covers a lot of ground, but needs to be
further worked out.
References
Altmann, Hans. 1978. Gradpartikelprobleme, volume 8 of Studien zur deutschen Grammatik .
Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Beaver, David, and Brady Clark. 2003. ”always” and ”only”: Why not all focus sensitive
operators are alike. Ms. Stanford University.
Büring, Daniel, and Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive
particles in German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:229–281.
Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikel im
Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Lenerz, Jürgen. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen., volume 5 of Studien
zur Deutschen Grammatik . Gunter Narr: Tübingen.
Müller, Gereon. 1999. Optimality, markedness, and word order in German. Linguistics
37:777–818.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, AVOIDF and other constraints on the placement
of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7:141–177.
Wagner, Michael. 2003. Linearization and Holmberg’s Generalization in an OV-lanuage.
MS. MIT.
26